Saturday, November 14, 2009

New Nanos Poll: 9.2-pt Conservative Lead

Finally, another pollster weighs in. Nanos gives similar results to Thursday's EKOS, but is better for the NDP and the Liberals.This poll represents a drop of 1.8 points for the Conservatives and 1.2 points for the Liberals. The NDP gains 1.3 points and is now at a very good 17.9%, while the Greens take 1.3 points.

Nanos is different from the other pollsters in that they don't prompt the parties, which is one of the reasons they poll lower for the Greens. Of course, considering other pollsters give the Greens 50% to 100% more than they got in the last election, Nanos is probably closer to the mark.

The regionals have goods and bads for all parties.

The Conservatives polled very well in Atlantic Canada, at 41.8%. But they were low in British Columbia. Their results in Ontario and Quebec are good, but within the norm of what we've seen lately.

The Liberals polled very well in British Columbia, and much better than they have been polling in Ontario and Quebec. But being in second place in Atlantic Canada is an issue.

The NDP polled very, very well in Ontario. Quebec is good, British Columbia is okay, and Atlantic Canada is bad.

The Bloc's 35.6% is low.

Since Nanos lumps Alberta and the Prairies together, I've used the seat projections from the last EKOS poll for those two regions. With them, we get:

Conservatives - 139Liberals - 92Bloc Quebecois - 47New Democrats - 30

The Tories take 65 in the West, 52 in Ontario, 10 in Quebec, and 12 in Atlantic Canada.

The Liberals take 17 in the West, 41 in Ontario, 17 in Quebec, and 17 in Atlantic Canada. Those are decent results west of the Ottawa River.

The NDP takes 13 in the West, 13 in Ontario, one in Quebec, and three in Atlantic Canada. The result out east is problematic for them.

As for who would make the best Prime Minister, Stephen Harper gets 34.8%, Michael Ignatieff gets 17.7%, and Jack Layton gets 14.9%. That is a good result for Harper, though a few points lower than September's result. It's a horrible result for Ignatieff, down six points. Layton's result is good, though still lower than his party's national result. Duceppe took 23.2% in Quebec (ahead of the others), and May took 4.5% nationally. "None of them" was favoured by 9.3%. This bumps the "Best PM" track to 30, 15, and 13 for the three leaders.

Nothing earth-shattering in this poll, but it's clear the Tories are back to their front-of-the-pack-but-minority status and the NDP is back in the game. This looks like a decent (relatively speaking) poll for the Liberals, but it actually represents losses from the last Nanos poll.

72 comments:

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I'm trying to understand how you project seats on individual polls. For example, in the last election the NDP had 18.2% in Ontario and got 17 seats. This latest Nanos poll has them at 18.9 and has Tory support almost identical to last election and Liberal support up about 1%. So how do you get the NDP at 13 seats in Ontario compared to the current 17 seats when support for all parties in Ontario is essentially identical to the last election. Granted, in this poll the NDP is up 0.7% from the election and the Liberals are up 1.3%, but there is not a single NDP held seat in Ontario where the margin over the Liberals last election was anywhere near close enough that a net 0.6% Liberal over NDP swing would shift it over.

The Nanos poll has the Liberals up 8.6 points in BC from the 2008 election, EKOS has them up 6.5 points in Alberta. That equates to seat gains. Will they actually get that in an election? That's not what the seat projections of individual polls answers.

In general, the polls show them up in BC, Alberta, and the Prairies. To say they won't gain a single seat is silly.

There's a couple seats around Winnipeg the Liberals could take if they were lucky, but I agree - I don't see any way they would be getting 17 seats in the West.

They would have a strong chance of gaining Saanich-Gulf Islands if May wasn't running there.

And the NDP should be winning more seats with that high of a result, although granted many of its seats in Ontario were won by narrow margins and could switch, and whether it keeps them will be largely determined by turnout in an election.

One question is never asked in any poll-have you recently moved from one province to another. Alifelong liberal from Ont would bring that preference to where ever they moved, thus raising numbers for any party.This shows up in local election polls also.Having worked at polls for federal and provincial elections for 30 yrs, with the same electors, minus deaths, I predicted the ndp would gain 6 votes last federal election. I was wrong, they got 7. I forgot one new teacher was from BC. These newcomers usually carry their vote for one election then go conservative.

Please clarify. Does your model have any method of taking incumbency into effect ?

One would think turning over a seat with an entrenched MP would be more difficult. Look at Anne McLellan for instance - she wasn't winning in Alberta because of Liberal popularity in the province. In fact once she was off the ballot a lot of Liberal voters just evapourated.

Alright, I'll clarify my statement. To say they wouldn't gain a seat, if these polling numbers remained steady, would be silly.

--- "Does your model have any method of taking incumbency into effect?"

Indirectly, it is taken into account, since the projection is based on past performance.

I currently have the Tories winning all 28 seats in the province. The polls would have to trend heavily towards the Liberals to give them a seat. The EKOS poll had the Liberals high in the province. It probably had a lot to do with the MOE.

Its actually not THAT far-fetched that the Liberals could gain a couple of seats out west in the next election if they get a bit of a "dead cat bounce" from last time and if the Tories are down a bit in popularity. I'm not saying its likely, but it is possible.

Liberals could win back St. Boniface, Winnipeg South, Edmonton Centre, North Vancouver, West Vancouver and maybe one or two others in the Lower Mainland. Of course the 10% Liberal showing in the New Westminster byelection provides evidence that even if polls say the Liberals are up 6 points in BC compared to the last election - in reality they are likely to end up right back where they were if not lower.

The Liberal strength in BC is within Vancouver City proper and in the neighbouring north shore/Richmond.

In 2008, the CPC tide rolled into the City of Vancouver, from the suburbs, with a good chunk of 2006 Liberal voters switching to the CPC.

Dion was seen as too centre-left with the 'Green Shift' and was not particularly understandable - a poor communicator.

With Ignatieff seen as a 'blue' Liberal, many will likely switch back to the Liberals in the aforementioned areas and the Liberals have a good chance to retake Vancouver Kingsway from the NDP and Richmond/North Vancouver/West Vancouver from the CPC.

But that also requires the Liberals to turn their game plan around from its current shabby state.

Liberals can forget about winning Kingsway for the foreseeable future. Its a very working class NDP area provincially and it was a bit of a fluke that went Liberal at all in '04 and '06 with Emerson. With the Liberals running the same grade Z placeholder they ran last time and with NDP support either stable or on the increase in BC - it is unwinnable for the Lbs.

Vancouver Kingsway has been a Liberal seat since 1993. The eastern 1/4 around Queen Elizabeth Park is the "wealthy area".

The rest of the "working class" riding comprises mostly older single family homes priced in the $800,000 range.

And the prominent demographic is Chinese-Canadian, which switched heavily to the CPC in 2008 all over Vancouver.

The NDP garnered just over 1/3 of the vote in Vancouver Kingsway in 2008 while the Liberals/CPC were right behind. The CPC actually won a good chunk of the polling stations in the riding in 2008 - zilch in 2006.

FWIW, the federal NDP only realizes around 60% of their provincial vote.

Just like all of the other ridings in Vancouver proper, I suspect that many of the Liberal/CPC switchers in 2008 will return to their previous voting patterns in the next go around.

See this is where incumbency comes in. You say the Liberals could take back St. Boniface.

Really? And beat the popular Shelly Glover?

I don't see them getting anything in Alberta either, I just don't.

From everyone's discussions the only place I really think the Liberals could make a comeback is in some of those swanky Vancouver ridings.

Ignatieff should appeal to the rich and the well educated. He's moving back from the left and more towards the center.

But the problem he's finding is that the Conservatives are no longer "scary".

Harper hasn't done anything socially conservative lately and he's actually been able to get a lead in some of the big cities. His vote is becoming a lot more efficient and widespread.

Those big city traditional Liberal ridings were either ethnic voters (the CPC has them now, Ujjal Dosanjh is going down next election) or mostly about people voting their interests, the rich and connected wanting a seat at the governing table.

Now that the power has shifted and the corporate and bussiness interests have a new master I predict that those traditional Liberal bastions will slowly dissapear.

Those of you think the Liberals can't pick up seats in the west are betting on the same senario playing itself over and over again. I don't see anything but Tory Blue in Alberta barring something catistrophic. Saskastchewan I would put in the same catagory save for one or two seats. Manitoba I don't know a lot about. BC is a different animal altogether. Depending on the issues that emerge in the campaign it can surprise. I see it as Jesse does, as mainly CPC, but the voters there are capable of mercurical swings given the right issue. Never think anything is a sure thing in politics.

"Those big city traditional Liberal ridings were either ethnic voters (the CPC has them now, Ujjal Dosanjh is going down next election) or mostly about people voting their interests, the rich and connected wanting a seat at the governing table."

Based upon that analogy, the Liberals will win Vancouver Kingsway. With an average single family dwelling in the nighbourhood of $800,000+, they should consider themselves as "rich wanting a seat at the governing table".

It also looks as if "big" city 416 area code Toronto will also vote CPC. Rather doubtful methinks.

The Liberal party isn't going to dissapear overnight. Reviewing electoral history is useless because we're in the middle of a re-alignment, a situation where history can NOT predict future events.

However, it should be noted that in the last three elections Conservative vote share in Vancouver-Kingsway has risen steadily: 16.5%, 19%, 27.5%.

"Economically conservative and socially liberal"

That was my exact point. The Conservatives haven't done anything these voters would consider scary lately. The marriage issue is long gone and forgotten. If a candidate even mentions abortion they dissapear in the dead of night.

All of the traditional Liberal voting blocs are starting to dissapear. Ethnic voters, upscale voters, bussiness groups and corporate types.

As that support shifts the Conservatives will probably act as a spoiler in the big cities, allowing the NDP to win.

Sigh, as I said parties do not dissapear overnight and I am by no means suggesting that the Liberals are going to lose all 5 BC seat any time soon. It'll be a gradual process of retirement and attrition.

PS - most of the seats you listed aren't even Liberal seats...

Here's my projections for these Vancouver ridings:

Vancouver East is going to stay NDP, yes, Libby Davies is going nowhere.

In Vancouver South the Conservatives barely lost it to Ujjal Dossangh, by less than a single percentage point. Wai Young will win the riding for the CPC next time.

Vancouver Quadra is likely to stay Liberal for awhile although the Conservatives could one day take this riding.

Vancouver Centre is likely to stay Liberal because of Hedy Fry's incumbency. If the Greens weren't acting as spoilers it could one day go NDP.

Vancouver Kingsway is staying NDP.

Other Liberal ridings:

Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca - this very nearly went back to Conservative last election, seems like it could flip at any time or Keith Martin could cross the floor and rejoin the party.

Newton - North Delta - Mr. Gurmant's implosion let the Libs take this but it could very easily go Conservative next time.

After the next election i'm guessing the Liberals will go from 5 seats to 2, regardless of what Eric's projection is saying.

Regarding Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. The moment the inexplicable popular DOCTOR PROFESSOR Keith Martin finally retires or whatever - that seat will go NDP. Both provincial seats that make up that federal seat went NDP by landslide margins and its traditional NDP territory.

Jesse, I certainly disagree with your analysis. The federal Liberals only attained 19% of the popular vote in BC in 2008 - the lowest vote share in almost 25 years - only 1984 was slightly lower.

And that was due to the "Dion" factor. Certainly they will achieve a higher percentage of the popular vote in the next go round. You can bank on that.

Based upon a poll-by-poll riding analysis, the Indo-Canadian vote in the Main Street area voted heavily Liberal allowing Dosanjh to keep his seat.

Same situation with Sukh Dhaliwal in the Newton portion of Newton-North Delta. The Indo-Canadian vote went heavily Liberal. BTW, Gurmant wasn't the candidate for the CPC - Sandeep Pander was the CPC candidate. Yet, the CPC steam-roller was not able to overcome that Liberal voting pattern in 2008 although it did in all other neighbouring ridings.

You should stop comparing provincial to federal. We only have 2 (+ green) provincial parties in BC, with federal there is the Conservative party so its 3 (+ green).

The provincial NDP is far more successful and well regarded then then the federal counter part. Its seen as locally grown compared to Jack Layton's Ontario based leadership. Try electing the next NDP leader out here and maybe that will change.

I don't see the NDP winning this riding at all. Keith Martin was elected with nearly 50% in 2000 as an ALLIANCE member, with the Liberals in second at 24%, NDP at 13.5%.

NDP vote share has crept up in '04, '06 - 30.6%, 31.3% but in '08 collapsed back down to 22.7%

The numbers just don't work out for an NDP victory, it looks like a Conservative steal since Keith Martin got 34.2% and the Conservative got 34.1% in '08 compared to the 22.7% I mentioned for the NDP.

Grumant had his tape scandal before the '06 election and then stepped down as a candidate so we were left without the incumbency advantage. That's what I was refering to him for.

Then Conservatives actually ran a white candidate in the riding, did worse in '06 then in '04 because of it.

In '08 they got their act together and nominated Sandeep Pander, who did a better job and is running again next time I believe.

It was the same with the recent New West by-election. Last time the Conservatives were within three points of winning because they ran a successful Korean woman. This time it was that Port Moody city counciller.

Tip for Conservative party - in heavily minority ridings it helps to nominate a representative minority candidate !

I can see why people might question whether the Liberals can gain any significant support in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta's easy to call, and the only good news for the Liberals in Saskatchewan is that the provincial NDP is hugely unpopular, so they can probably hold Ralph Goodale's seat and have a chance to pick up 1-2 more.

As mentioned, there are a few seats in and around Winnipeg they could conceivably win.

But it's just foolishness to write off BC like this. BC routinely moves in the opposite direction from the rest of the country, and it's notoriously hard to predict. Stephen Harper himself is on record saying he "doesn't understand" the province.

There are very few outcomes in BC that would surprise me. Right now I'm actually expecting big NDP gains across the province, but I haven't been right yet (hopefully I'm learning)

I feel like the NDP are definetly very motivated. The provincial loss actually had the effect of energizing them, especially after the HST double cross.

However, I can only see them picking up two more ridings in the province:

Vancouver Island North and Surrey North.

That's it. Nowhere else is close enough. They're both Conservative seats, however, the Conservatives could pick up to three Liberal seats off and MAYBE Bill Sisksay's riding, MAYBE (he only won by 1.6% last election).

And I just don't see the Liberals having bounced back in the province. I see their decline continuing just from a momentum/organizational perspective. And strong NDP means vote splits and weak Liberals.

I read a Canadian study not that long ago wherein the authors concluded that the incumbency advantage that appears to exist for sitting MPs is almost solely attributable to the _perception_ that it exists.

In other words, it is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The riding is held by an incumbent candidate belonging to Party A; parties B and C _perceive_ the incumbent to be entrenched. Parties B and C then have greater difficulty recruiting a quality candidate and also have a greater challenge motivating campaign volunteers.

Given her overwhelming control of the gay community, she has a massive guaranteed voting bloc almost regardless of what she does. I lived in Vancouver Centre for two elections, and I threw my vote at the Libertarian Party because I knew there was no way anyone but Hedy was going to win.

Vancouver centre is hard to read. Adriane Carr, former Green party BC leader, is running again. She got 18.3% of the vote last go around, which is pretty huge.

For what its worth Fry's numbers did drop in '08 to 34.5% compared to the low 40's in past elections.

But until she actually retire this riding is hers forever.

I don't get the sense that this riding is particularily "right wing" in any sense though. Wealthy sure, but very socially liberal.

If the Conservatives are ever going to win it back someone like Lorne Mayencourt was a good pick.

The NDP could pick it up if they had a more libertarian type candidate, the opposite of the social gospel stuff you find on the prairies. They'd need to take the environmental vote too though and not have the Greens spoiling.

When the Conservatives get their majority this sort of riding is going to open up, with older, long serving Liberals retiring because they know they won't have a shot at cabinet for a decade.

It guess without saying that federal and provincial voting are never going to be perfectly correlated, but there is still a lot of overlap. If you look at the seats that the NDP holds federally in BC, they are virtually also areas that vote heavily NDP provincially. The two provincial ridings that make up Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca are not just marginal NDP seats they are supersafe seats that go NDP by very wide margins. In fact the two provincial ridings that are in EJF are even more NDP than are the two ridings that make up New Westminster-Coquitlam - and look what happened there.

I think that because Keith Martin is an incumbent with some inexplicable personal appeal - the anti-Tory vote in that riding tends to consolidate behind him. There is no other reason for there to be so much Liberal support in that riding when they are practically a fourth party everywhere else in BC. I think that if Martin were out of the picture, the Liberal vote in that riding will quickly prove to have been almost all just a personal vote for him and without him on the ballot, they would be lucky to get 15% of the vote there - and what they lose will shift en masse to the NDP.

EJF like almost all of Vancouver Island is a riding that leans left in a two way race and I think that in a NDP-Tory faceoff - you would need a Tory landslide where they took almost half the vote province-wide to be able to win there.

I think that what we are likely to see in BC in the next election is the Tories falling back to the 36-37% they got in the '04 and '06 elections, the NDP will probably move up from 26% to 29-30% and the Liberals will have a slight dead cat bounce from 19% to something in the low 20s. In that context, you will see the NDP win Surrey North and North Vancouver Island for sure, Kamloops will be a tossup and the Tories will likely lose seats like North Vancouver and West Vancouver to the Liberals - because those ridings are too urban and socially liberal to vote for a party as "uncouth" as the federal Tories.

In 1988, the NDP took 19 seats in BC even though the Tories were winning a majority nationwide - and guess what the leader of the federal NDP at that time was from Ontario!

This thread started off with DL (joined by MaryT and Jesse) denying the shocking possibility of any further Liberal contamination of western Canada. Honestly, some of you suffer from a severe anti-Liberal neurosis. News flash!!! This country will NOT be better off if you realize your heart's desire, i.e. the ethnic cleansing of all Liberals. Just what is it that you are hoping so fondly will die out? Like too many Canadians, your resentments have led you to believe this country would be better off if certain people weren't here. Pathetic! Have a look into your own psyches and try to achieve some self-knowledge, before you embarass yourselves any further.

I'm sorry but you discredit yourself by saying Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo will be a toss up.

After Hinton retired all the local newspapers were perfectly willing to hype the local NDP candidate, who had run previously and was very well known in the community. He worked like heck, there was no Liberal vote to speak off.

Then a week into the campaign the Tories select their nominee - a former mayor from outside the riding - and she wins easily.

I know Nelson Riis once held the seat a million years ago - he used to pay us $5 to put Canadian flags on cars at the Barriere fall fair.

But that was a long, long time ago and the NDP simply is not going to win this riding ever again.

I did not hijack this thread. I asked a question. Considering how close Martin/Ujaal come to losing last time, will they win again. I really doubt they will get a seat in AB. So, I am wondering where they will pick up 12 seats, there are not that many up for grabs. We don't know who if any liberal MPs will retire, knowing they are not going to be in cabinet for several years.

DL - Kamloops was a 'Nelson Riis' seat - not an NDP seat. Riis routinely received a good chunk of non-NDP support. He was also elected in 1979 when the NDP routinely received 35% of the BC federal vote.

There was even media speculation prior to the 1984 election that he would jump over to the CPC but that never materialized.

Since it has the best climate in Canada, Kamloops is also now becoming a favoured retirement destination for both Prairie and Ontario folk esp. considering that Okanagan Valley real estate is severely over-priced.

The CPC cleans up in the Thompson and Cariboo portions of the riding and wins most of the polls south of the Thompson River.

The NDP does very well on the north side of the Thompson River - namely North Shore and neighbouring Brocklehurst but those areas don't see much population growth with the exception of the retiree subdivisions further eastward along the north side of the Thompson River.

I was even surprised at the stength of the provincial Liberals in both Kamloops ridings last May.

I the last election Kamloops went CPC - 45%, NDP - 35%, Liberals 11%. Its a bit of a bellwether riding, though the NDP vote % has gone up in each of the last three elections. If the province wide spread between CPC and NDP went from the current 18 point 44-26 spread to the more likely 8 point 37-29 spread - then Kamloops is a tossup. It will help if there is a stronger Liberal campaign and also if the NDP keeps beating the anti-HST drum.

BTW: I never said the Liberals could never elect any new MPs in the west. I was the one who listed seats that they could conceivably win under the right circumstances.

Oh, Jesse, you're betraying your own preoccupations by mentioning racism. I said no such thing! But I do think it's pathetic to pin your hopes for a better Canada on the demise of an old party. Have you ever considered that the existence of that party has something to do with the nature of this country itself, and that your belief in the Conservatives will inevitably be dashed (just like the West's belief in Mulroney) because long-term CPC success requires an understanding of all parts of Canada? You're living a firewall dream. Wake up!

I didn't know "Liberal" was an ethnicity that could be "cleansed", last time I checked it was just a political party.

And nobody is talking about getting rid of people, that's beyond ridiculous. If the Liberal party ceases to exist there will still be the exact same amount of Canadians, from all walks of life that there are today.

I'm sorry but its your bias showing - a bias towards assuming the worst about non-Liberals, that they are somehow intolerant, pre-occupied with race (that's the charge you just leveled against me), or dreaming about "firewalls".

The Liberals haven't run a strong Kamloops campaign for two cycles, since a popular local city counciller run in '04. In fact their vote collapsed from 25% in '06 down to 10% in '08 with the exact same candidate.

Besides, a chunk of the Liberal vote went to the Greens (8% showing, same candidate running next election) and then split fairly even between the CPC and the NDP. So a stronger Liberal candidate/campaign wouldn't help the NDP either way.

Bottom line is that even in the best case NDP scenario you outlined, which is basically a return to the '06 results, Cathy McLeod would match Hinton's '06 win for an 8% victory.

If you consider an 8% Conservative advantage a toss up, well then that's your bussiness.

Jesse - I'm sorry but Yonah Martin was not a successful Korean businesswoman but a school teacher who didn't even live in the riding. She was successful, however, in convincing long-time Liberal supporters many in the ethnic community to join her (of which her reward was a job as CON ethnic outreach, of which her salary is from me and you for her senatorial title)... Many occasional liberal supporters stayed home. Many of them stayed home this byelection too, despite the Liberals running a much-more successful and well-spoken Korean-Canadian. The NdP succeeded in using the HsT and rode the wave of 'most-known' candidate Fin Donnelly, despite his rather pathetic record on the local city council. There will possibly be a more likely competitive race come the general election; the liberals in that riding, however, are not nor have they been since Paul Martin a real contender.

"not since Paul Martin" means every election except the last one. While its true that no Liberal has actually won New Westminster-Coquitlam since 1968 - they almost always would get 25% or more of the vote there. The 11% in the '08 election and the 10% last week are wayyyy lower than before and show that the liberal "floor" is lower than we ever thought.

Apologies, I looked at her bio again. She does serve on a number of boards and committees but they are non-profit in nature. However, "school teacher" doesn't do her justice. She appears to quite well educated (more so than the average teacher) and very active in the community, recieving a number of awards.

As for the senate - every new member is one vote closer to reform. So that's a total non-issue.

Regardless, it appears to be a pretty solid NDP riding now and I don't see them losing it anytime soon.

(They're not actually angry, its a popular media storyline coming out of the US that's giving people that idea especially with coverage focused on random acts of anger creating an impression out of line with actual events.)

The point of the media meme is to marginalize people who oppose Obama. Although I guess it works in Canada too - just saw Yann Martel on CBC saying that he's decided Harper doesn't read fiction because he has an angry persona.

I guess if you drilled down a bit into this myth about right wing anger you'd find elitist liberal types assuming that their beliefs are enlightened and superior and that anyone who doesn't share them must have some defect.

Sigh. Same with people lamenting the lack of civility in the house. Its just another example of preening lefty types insisting that all right thinking individuals are uneducated cavemen.

Providing tax relief to low and middle income families in the form of sales tax and property tax rebates seems like inefficient tax shifting considering the very same families will be paying taxes on essentials they did not previously.

(Its actually a pretty cynical way to promote government dependency, being bribed with your own money and excited when the gov't gives you a cheque)

As I said, I think it would be better to lower the actual tax rate a couple points, broaden it, and cut back on the rebates.

Harmonization does cut back on paperwork which will increase efficiency and create jobs.

New taxes on fuel are a very bad idea because that's a huge input cost that will ripple right throw supply chains and hit consumers. Other gas taxes should be reduced to make sure this has no net effect. This feels too much like a green/carbon tax.

The reductions in the corporate tax rate are very good and very nessecary from a competitive standpoint. The new ad campaign hopefully will lure some bussiness to Ontario to replace the eroding manufacturing base.

The personal income tax cuts are fine, sure to be popular, I just hope the province has a plan to get out of debt.

All in all the policy is a bit muddled, the roll out seems hamfisted, and i'm sure the provincial Liberals will suffer.

However, I maintain, this is a strictly provincial matter and NOT a federal one.

And in the end it probably will create new jobs and spur economic growth.

Agree with you on the idea of lowering the HST rate as opposed to bigger low income rebates. The price of all fuels, including electricity, heating oil, gasoline and natural gas will subject to an additional 8% tax. That's going to be inflationary but is sure as heck broadens the base.

If Iggy can make this an issue federally then he has the potential to do damage at the expense of his provincial cousins after implementation. People are not entirely stupid and it's pretty easy to tie Harper and McGuinty together as regards the HST. It is the Feds who are bribing both the BC and ON provincial governments to bring in this new tax.

Can just see the tag line. This man (HARPER) paid the ON Government 4.6 billion of YOUR money SO you Can Pay More for the essentials of life.

Know we don't agree but perhaps some others might like to voice their thoughts on this one.

Jack Layton already sent me a letter about the Campbell-Harper tax grab. He's got the issue and he's running with it.

As for the Liberals, they invented the HST in the 90's. Nobody is going to believe their opposition to it and when Iggy tried to make it an issue Dalton McGuinty was highly annoyed and very quickly stepped out and said Iggy had told him privately he would honour the HST deal.

Besides, how awkward would caucus be with David McGuinty if Iggy threw his brother under the bus!

Unlike in BC, the campaign workers in Ontario are vertically integrated and a rift between Ignatieff and the Ontario Liberals would be politically fatal. If it was just the BC Liberals then maybe it would have been different.

Sorry to be cynical but the political tactics work here and Harper knows that.

Silence Ignatieff, give Layton a huge issue and boost to the NDP so there is lots of juicy vote splits next election, and then get a majority government.

If a stronger NDP caucus helps hasten the destruction of the Liberal party so much for the better. Either way they're usefull idiots.

I don't want a Liberal demise like you do. If the LPC became a small party then the choice would be between a party of the centre right, trending right and a party of the hard left. Short term a Liberal demise would give way to great vote splits for the CPC just as the Reform/PC split did for the Liberals in the 1990's. Eventually if the LPC withers and dies the opposition becomes the hard left, NDP. All governments lose eventually and you need look no further than BC to see what happens when the choice is left or right but not the centre. The Left wins some of the time and that can be disasterous. See Barrett in BC, Clarke in BC and Rae in ON. Do you want that at the Federal level?

I hope you are right about the HST issue at the Federal level. We'll see what happens with the HST. Only one of us will be right. It could well be you. It just might be me. Nothing is ever as black and white as you seem to paint it.

I'm not sure who exactly in Canadian politics qualifies as "hard left". The federal NDP is looking pretty moderate these days with Layton taking his cues from Doer and Dexter etc...and with his second in command being a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister. Skilled politicians do well - regardless of their politics. Its interesting to see Liberals pointing to Bob Rae as an example of a failed "hard left" government, when now he is the darling of the Liberal party. In fact the two rejects who led NDP provincial governments down the drain - Rae and Dosanjh - are sitting in the federal Liberal caucus right now. I can point out lots of utterly failed provincial governments of all parties - does the fact that John Savage in Nova Scotia had single digit approval ratings tell us that no Liberal is ever fit to govern anywhere? Do Grant Devine and Richard Hatfield tell us what will inevitably happen to Tories when they take power?

DL: Jack Layton scares me to death. So does Elizabeth May. Sorry but that's my take on things. I'm not a Liberal. I'm sure you feel the same way about Stephen Harper, he scares you.

Yes all governments eventually defeat themselves. We may be seeing it happen with Stelmach in Alberta.

BTW I don't blame Rae for all the problems ON faced under him. He did inherit a a huge deficit from the Peterson Liberals.

My point is that most changes in government occur when a government defeats itself. Some governments last longer than others. Mulroney's PC's had a 9 year expiry date. The LPC under Chretien and Martin 11 years. Trudeau longer because the ineptitude of Joe Clark.

My other point is that if I can't have a CPC government, I want what I see as a moderate alternative, the LPC, not the, IMO, hard left of the NDP.

Different people see things very differently. No political party out there embodies my ideals. So I end up voting for the lesser of two evils.

I think a reformed senate could easily handle an NDP federal government.

With a democratic mandate from the people any CPC senators or independents, former premiers of all parties, even more moderate NDP senators would be able to obstruct or alter legislation they didn't like.

Obstructionism sanctioned by the people is to be encouraged, as opposed to the unelected Liberal obstructionism of today. It would be an important check on federal power influenced heavily by the provinces. The senate is the firewall of the future.

Besides, do you not remember the coalition ? Whether anyone likes it or not "unite the left" is being discussed out there.

I am fully aware that a united left is being discussed. A coalition perhaps but the far left of the NDP and moderate right of LPC under one roof, I doubt it.

Layton is an opportunist and he saw his opportunity last December. Dion very badly wanted to be PM and nearly destroyed his party in his quest to do so. Both parties saw the polls after the coalition was announced. They don't want to fight an election as a coalition.

BTW there is no elected Senate and we will not have one for a very long time. Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces oppose Senate reform and until several million people move west they will continue to wield governing power. Harper can't get constitutional Senate reform and it is unlikely he can get defacto Senate reform because provinces who fear Senate reform simply won't participate in the process.

What concerns me frankly about your ideas is that you speak with such certitude. IF we had an elected Senate you have no idea what it would like it, yet you presume that it could block the actions of an NDP government. It must be great to go through life knowing the answers to questions that have bedeviled our politicans for generations.

"What concerns me frankly about your ideas is that you speak with such certitude."

That's a baffling remark. Everybody here is offering their opinion and analysis, not guaranties and pledges.

I don't see how my writing is any more or less full of certitude than your writing or anyone else's.

Of course, you probably mean to suggest you are more prudent, more reasonable and therefore perhaps more right.

In the future, when we can't come to an agreement on an issue the polite thing to do is simply say "agree to disagree". The wise old sage thing gets tiresome and these personal inferences are decidedly unhelpful.

Address the ideas, not the person putting them forward. Apologies if I haven't always taken my own advice.

"...you presume that it [elected senate] could block the actions of an NDP government. It must be great to go through life knowing the answers to questions that have bedeviled our politicans for generations."

This idea of the senate being the place where bad federal government ideas could be blocked on behalf of the interests of the provinces is definetly not new.

Stephen Harper himself wanted to turn the senate over to the provinces back in the 90's.

And the bedevilling has always centered around HOW to reform the senate given the constitutional restraints, not how it would function.

Almost every advanced democracy is bicameral in nature.

Look around the world, there are a century or two of examples of an upper body exercising sober second thought.

Here in Canada even the GST was almost blocked by the senate until Mulroney used section 26.

Given the body of historical evidence its actually quite obvious that a reformed senate representing the democratic will of the people could easily block legislation put forward by the federal NDP - unless, of course, they had a majority of senate seats. In which case that's democracy.

"The federal NDP is further left than their provincial counterparts. SK's Roy Romanow, MB's Gary Doer, and NS's Dexter operate as "orange Liberal" parties."

Oh really? can you provide actual examples of that or is that just some old shibboleth or myth that you want to cling to?

Yes, the federal NDP has had anywhere from 26% to 29% federally in the last three elections compared to about 40% provincially. Well HELLO, there are three parties federally and only two provincially. so of course when the pie is split into more slices everyone gets less.

What does it tell you about the Conservatives that they get 4% provincially in BC and 44% federally?

I think that if the federal NDP were to move to to having 100+ seats and over 30% of the vote - and even got into power - it would govern in a very moderate fashion just like the Australian Labor Party. Layton has shown that he can be as pragmatic and as strategic as anyone - if not more so.

There is a difference between "opposing" something and simply not doing something. I've never heard anyone in the Manitoba NDP say "I support scab labour", they just haven't gotten around to passing a law against it. Kinda like the federal Liberals and child care - they tell us every election that they support it - they just never get around to doing anything about it.

We already saw during the coalition negotiations last year that the federal NDP was more than willing to put a helluva lot of "water in its wine" on everything from Afghanistan to corporate taxes in order to get the Tories out of power.

I think that Liberals need to get their talking points straight about the NDP. One day they say the NDP are "hard left radical revolutionaries", the next day they say they are unprincipled and opportunistic and willing to compromise with other parties - even the Tories on occasion. Pick your talking point and stick with it!

While it is true that most advanced national governments are bicameral, there are a number of exceptions, including all of the Scandinavian countries as well as New Zealand (for a Westminster example).

Most Canadian provinces started out being bicameral as well (and Quebec stayed that way as late as 1968), but now none have an upper house. And no one seems to miss those chambers of sober second thought.

In truth, I have mixed feelings about whether the Canadian Senate is best let alone, abolished entirely or retained but reformed. I'm not sure that any of those three options are convincingly the "best" option.

Of the three options I think leaving the senate alone isn't satisfactory.

After that i'd lean towards reform because I believe it could help restrain the federal government, especially if the Liberals come in and want the green shift, national daycare, high speed railways, and all the other boondoggles they're supporting.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.